Clear guidelines now called for

Alfred Sasako
It was introduced in the late 70s as a grant. Its purpose was to empower elected Members of Parliament provide start-up capital for small, individual income-generating projects such as trade stores, piggery or chicken farms in their rural electorates or constituencies.

Each MP would be given up to S$25,000 for this purpose.

In those days, the proper use of the grants almost ensured re-election for most MPs. In the last two years grants paid to MPs including the Rural Constituency Development Fund [RCDF] have ballooned.

As of this year for example, each of the 50 all-male MPs now receives S$2 million [about USD257,000] in grants on behalf of his constituency.

This S$100 million funding bonanza comes from a number of sources—and the Republic of China or Taiwan provides half the spoils. Taiwan’s funding comes in the form of grants it provides in RCDF, Special Micro Projects and the Millennium Fund, which Taipei introduced this year.

The balance [$50 million] comes from the Rural Livelihood Fund [RLF] which the Coalition for National Unity and Rural Advancement [CNURA] administration led by Prime Minister Dr Derek Sikua introduced in its first budget earlier this year.

With all this money flooding Solomon Islands’ economic landscape, concerns have been raised about how these funds are being used by MPs.

Some of these concerns have prompted former foreign minister, Patterson Oti, to introduce a private members’ motion, calling for clear guidelines on how the grants are to be used.

The motion was being debated at the time this issue went to press. Essentially, it called for clear guidelines on the use of the grants in an effort to enhance transparency and accountability.

As well, it is intended to ensure the grants are used as intended. In other words, the use of the grants outside the prescribed guidelines would constitute a misuse of public funds and if proven, the MP is liable to face corruption charges.

No doubt, Oti’s move was also prompted by the action of the government, which paid $100,000 to each MP as a top-up on their RCDF grants which have been used up only halfway through the financial year.

The payment was made a week before the government defeated a no-confidence motion last month [August].

Taking MPs to task What Oti did might not be enough to send warning bells through the corridors of powers in Solomon Islands. The onus is now on members of the public who felt their funds have been misused.

Some are taking up the challenge head-on. Increasingly, they are becoming bolder in taking MPs to task over the alleged misuse of the RCDF grants in particular.

Their actions have resulted in the conviction of two MPs.

One had served out his term and is out of prison. The other has lost his seat as a result of losing his appeal against charges of misuse of funds earmarked for a particular project but was expended elsewhere. He will spend the next 18 months behind bars.

This is where some members of the public are becoming more and more critical of the justice system in Solomon Islands.

Their argument is that what these two former MPs did is now a common occurrence, but no one seems to raise a finger.

For example, a few weeks before the nation celebrated its 30th independence anniversary in July, the national government dished out a total of $2.5 million to be shared equally amongst the 50 MPs.

While the $50,000 apiece was intended to be used to celebrate the independence anniversary in the rural areas, almost none took place. It appeared some MPs used the money to provide food for their own relatives or supporters who visited them during the weekend of independence celebrations in Honiara.

Questions are now being asked whether this constituted a misuse of public funds, the same sin which landed two other MPs in jail

Some lawyers in Honiara are keen to take up a test case, but they are waiting on members of the public to complain. The indecision by members of the public to take up the matter raises other important questions: Have MPs paid them off to say nothing? If so, it is clear the source of funding is none other than the public funds which MPs receive on behalf of their constituencies.

Does such an action on the part of the MP constitute a misuse of public fund?

Lawyers spoken to were not forthcoming in addressing the question directly, but they do agree the question provides a good basis for a strong test case.

“The question to prove in court is whether what the other two gentlemen did was different from what is the norm today. I mean, diverting funds intended for constituency celebrations is no different at all from what the two gentlemen did. They’ve paid the price for their action, what about these other guys?” one lawyer asked.

Funding of mainly supporters not to say anything also raises other fundamental questions—questions of marginalisation and selectivity in driving a “them-and-us” wedge amongst voters. For example, does selective funding in support of one’s own voters, which is now the norm, constitute a misuse of public fund?

In the Solomon Islands where an MP would be lucky to collect 50% of the votes cast, marginalisation has a severe impact, particularly in the rural areas. A large portion of the electorate would be left in the wilderness for the next four years.

Take the election result for the seat of East Honiara in the 2006 national general election for example. The winning candidate, Charles Dausabea, polled only 23.42% of the 8239 votes cast. Given that MPs have the tendency to look after only those who voted them in, almost 76% or 6 347 of voters were marginalised, isolated or left out of public funding dished out in the name of constituency.

Voter marginalisation Apart from strengthening their hands in choosing what they could and could not do, public funding through grants has made some MPs very wealthy overnight. One MP in particular, a first timer, is said to have amassed a personal fortune in assets which included two houses, a number of public transport buses and other vehicles.

Grants paid yearly to MPs are only the tip of the iceberg in Solomon Islands.

MPs have easy access to other funding sources, mostly known to MPs only. Take for example, a $10 million grant provided by Taiwan last year to revive the nation’s livestock industry, which lost some 30,000 herds of cattle during the social unrest.

The funds were administered by the department of Agriculture and Livestock. As it turned out, funds were disbursed amongst mostly government ministers and backbenchers in the hope of keeping the coalition together.

Senior officials said that days before the government, led by Manasseh Sogavare, fell in a no-confidence vote, MPs literally lined up to collect their share of the loot.

Others had their cheques delivered at home. And these were not $20 cheques. These cheques were literally for thousands of dollars. At the top end was a cheque for $400,000 for one MP. The smallest amount of the lot was $150,000. A similar funding in the fisheries sector was shared out in a similar fashion at the time as well.

Unfortunately, these payments did not stop most government MPs from walking out. They teamed up with then Opposition leader, Fred Fono, now Deputy Prime Minister, and ousted the Sogavare-led government.

In Solomon Islands, the question on the lips of thousands of voters is: Where’s all the money being spent? Many Solomon Islanders have seen little in terms of development since Solomon Islands have become awashed with millions and millions of dollars.

But don’t bet your life this is the end of the funding bonanza. The CNURA government might just have something up its sleeve come 2009.